you are a dunning kruger

Funny you say this. It’s the exact opposite. The more you’re indoctrinated into said subjective axiom the more you won’t be able to see any of this and the more brainwashed you will be. Ie: decades of math learning in your axiom within your system/foundation

Someone like me who skipped the subjective axiom and went straight to outside the system is someone who can point these things out. I basically sped run through the abstract subjective bullshit

Dunning Kruger detected

terrence howard is retard

Dunning Kruger detected

I’m on a math kick because I just realized how math is the ultimate deception

In my quest of using/deep diving with the words “abstract” and “concrete” to point out deception within this matrix and glitch through the system

I started with countries and it ultimate lead me to math. Dead stop

The foundation of your math(choice of your axiom) is subjective. Based on or influenced by personal feelings, taste, or opinions.

This is a fact. It is subjective. And most don’t even know this





Now that you know this fact, since the foundation of your math is subjective(choice of your axiom) then that means to not FIRST learn this is subjective will generate bias within the masses towards your axiom you’re taught in

You are not first taught the foundation is subjective. You’re not even taught this in high school. This should be the first thing that is taught to not generate bias. There is mass pshycosis going on

Now this all ties in to concrete/abstract, and Terrence Howard but that’s for another post. First you need to understand the simple fact your maths foundation is subjective

In some sense it is subjective but it feels pretty natural and reasonable to me once you get it. Math is huge though. I don’t think anyone is imposing it on you, and even so, since it is subjective why don’t you pick your own definitions and show the math community how cool and interesting they are.

Terrence has done it but that’s for another thread

I don’t think you understand axioms though from what you wrote. You are literally indoctrinated into their axiom and 95% of people do not know that axiom is subjective

If you’re not first told it is subjective you will naturally have bias towards the subjective axiom.. read above at last comment

true or false: someone who has not been immersed in or "well-educated" in a specific system, dogma, or set of axioms from birth (or early education) is often better positioned to see the outside of that system from an external vantage point than someone who has

Math is similar to a game. If you want you can play along, but the participants needs to agree with the rules, otherwise what’s the point?

Game of natural numbers:

”0 is a natural number”
”Every number has a successor”
”0 is not the succesor of any natural number”

etc.

Terrence have issues with the game so he proposes new rules, but the game he proposes is not very fun, so few are interested. That is fine, Terrence has his own game.

Math is similar to a game. If you want you can play along, but the participants needs to agree with the rules, otherwise what’s the point?

Game of natural numbers:

”0 is a natural number”
”Every number has a successor”
”0 is not the succesor of any natural number”

etc.

Terrence have issues with the game so he proposes new rules, but the game he proposes is not very fun, so few are interested. That is fine, Terrence has his own game.

Math is similar to a game. If you want you can play along, but the participants needs to agree with the rules, otherwise what’s the point?

Game of natural numbers:

”0 is a natural number”
”Every number has a successor”
”0 is not the succesor of any natural number”

etc.

Terrence have issues with the game so he proposes new rules, but the game he proposes is not very fun, so few are interested. That is fine, Terrence has his own game.

If truly truly want to know why Terrence axiom is truth I will explain but most won’t understand

abstract systems cannot find concrete truth outside their axiom, they can only find abstract subjective utility. Only concrete systems can find concrete truth outside their axiom and thats what terrence is aiming to do Masses are defending the subjective map. hes looking at the territoryhe believes only real entities can be numbers not abstract and it’s also not addition. -Addition: 1 and 1 > (1, 1) = 2 (two separate items counted together).-His Multiplication: 1x1 > (1, 1) > > 2 (two items fused into one new item of value 2).You are battling against linguistic filters

Math is similar to a game. If you want you can play along, but the participants needs to agree with the rules, otherwise what’s the point?

Game of natural numbers:

”0 is a natural number”
”Every number has a successor”
”0 is not the succesor of any natural number”

etc.

Terrence have issues with the game so he proposes new rules, but the game he proposes is not very fun, so few are interested. That is fine, Terrence has his own game.

Math is similar to a game. If you want you can play along, but the participants needs to agree with the rules, otherwise what’s the point?

Game of natural numbers:

”0 is a natural number”
”Every number has a successor”
”0 is not the succesor of any natural number”

etc.

Terrence have issues with the game so he proposes new rules, but the game he proposes is not very fun, so few are interested. That is fine, Terrence has his own game.

You’re just too stupid to understand. Your small brain can’t comprehend that your axiom is subjective. Be big brained and realize that he’s thinking about another system that is completely different and completely useful but because it’s in another system it can’t be explained to you- you just will not and can not understand it. It’s too complex and complicated only people with less than a 2nd grade education understand and maybe even then it’s too late. 2nd is subjective though- the grade with children that have been in school for a short time only- through seasons since birth.

This is why Terrence Howard’s math is the truth and what we have now is deception

abstract systems cannot find concrete truth outside their axiom, they can only find abstract subjective utility. Only concrete systems can find concrete truth outside their axiom and thats what terrence is aiming to do Masses are defending the subjective map. hes looking at the territory

he believes only real entities can be numbers not abstract and it’s also not addition.

-Addition: 1 and 1 > (1, 1) = 2 (two separate items counted together).

-His Multiplication: 1x1 > (1, 1) > > 2 (two items fused into one new item of value 2).You are battling against linguistic filters

This is a fair point TBH.

We do numbers in base 10 for example. But binary, 1s and 0s, is perfectly valid too.

Math is similar to a game. If you want you can play along, but the participants needs to agree with the rules, otherwise what’s the point?

Game of natural numbers:

”0 is a natural number”
”Every number has a successor”
”0 is not the succesor of any natural number”

etc.

Terrence have issues with the game so he proposes new rules, but the game he proposes is not very fun, so few are interested. That is fine, Terrence has his own game.

This is a fair point TBH.

We do numbers in base 10 for example. But binary, 1s and 0s, is perfectly valid too.

This is why Terrence Howard’s math is the truth and what we have now is deception

abstract systems cannot find concrete truth outside their axiom, they can only find abstract subjective utility. Only concrete systems can find concrete truth outside their axiom and thats what terrence is aiming to do Masses are defending the subjective map. hes looking at the territory

he believes only real entities can be numbers not abstract and it’s also not addition.

-Addition: 1 and 1 > (1, 1) = 2 (two separate items counted together).

-His Multiplication: 1x1 > (1, 1) > > 2 (two items fused into one new item of value 2).You are battling against linguistic filters

So it’s not a new axiom it’s just relabeling? Maybe I think too high level with what an axiom is? My brains starting to hurt but it sounds like he’s still in the standard axiom? I do start wondering if it’s just too big brained for me to understand.

Well, whatever it is, it is not compatible with standard math. These types of ideas or interpretations are not new or uncommon. Ask any math professor, and he will attest to receiving weekly emails from people who have reached the conclusion that math is flawed, inconsistent, etc. The sole reason Terrence has reached the mainstream is due to his fame, not his ideas.

There is nothing mainstream about Terrence Howard. 99.99999% of the “internet” hates him and there’s an obvious smear campaign with astroturfing bots

There is literally not 1 place you can discuss terryology without getting attacked and people absolutely losing their shit it’s bizzare

You type the words “Terrence” on Reddit in your post and insta 30 downdoots negative 9%. It’s so fukin wierd

If you question math on Reddit straight -100 downdoots + astroturfing bot comments in seconds

If you point out the foundation of your math is subjective(fact) straight -100 downdoots in 90 seconds